identity, impoliteness and integration in online

https://doi.org/10.36575/2353-2912/1(8)2020.075 Forum Filologiczne Ateneum 1(8)2020

pp. 75-100

75

Identity, impoliteness and integration

in online immigration discourse

Tożsamość, niegrzeczność i integracja

w internetowym dyskursie imigracyjnym

Anna BĄCZKOWSKA1

University of Gdańsk

Ljiljana ŠARIĆ2 University of Oslo (Norway)

Abstract

The paper presents an analysis of the language used on the Internet (social media) by Poles living in Norway. Emphasis is placed on identity construction, integration and impoliteness strategies. The material presented in this study was retrieved from a corpus which was collected as part of a project devoted to national identity in immigration discourse. The method of analysis presented in this paper follows Culpeper’s (1996) taxonomy of impoliteness strategies. The data under inspection illustrate several types of positive and negative impoliteness. The results of the study demonstrate that the Polish diaspora in Norway is only partially integrated and that the language Poles use while writing both about the Norwegians and, in particular, about other Poles is imbued with insults, negative associations and derogatory nominations. Keywords: identity, impoliteness, immigration discourse

1 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0147-2718

University of Gdańsk, Institute of English and American Studies, English Language and Theoretical Linguistics Division [email protected]

2 https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4373-9182 University of Oslo, Norway Department of Literature, Area Studies and European Languages [email protected]

Anna BĄCZKOWSKA, Ljiljana ŠARIĆ

76

Streszczenie

Celem artykułu jest opis dyskursu używanego w mediach społecznościowych przez Polaków mieszkających w Norwegii. W celu przeprowadzenia analizy utworzono korpus danych zebranych z mediów społecznościowych, w przeważającej mierze z forów internetowych prowadzonych przez Polaków. Korpus ten utworzono w ramach projektu poświęconego badaniu tożsamości narodowej w dyskursie imigracyjnym. Badanie ukierunkowane było na wyszukiwanie wypowiedzeń świadczących o wyłaniającej się tożsamości polskich imigrantów w Norwegii, na identyfikacji używanych przez nich strategii integracji z ludnością rdzenną oraz na analizie języka, którego używają wypowiadając się na forach na wspomniane tematy. Język badany był pod kątem używania strategii niegrzeczności przez uczestników forów internetowych w oparciu o taksonomię zaproponowaną przez J. Culpepera (1996). Przeprowadzona analiza wykazała istnienie jedynie częściowej integracji polskich imigrantów z Norwegami oraz wyłanianie się trzech typów tożsamości. Na poziomie analizy języka zidentyfikowano kilka rodzajów pozytywnej i negatywnej niegrzeczności (positive/negative impoliteness). Zaobserwowano wysoką okurencję wypowiedzi przesiąkniętych obelgami, negatywnymi skojarzeniami i obraźliwymi nominacjami skierowanymi do przedstawicieli polskich imigrantów w Norwegii. Słowa kluczowe: tożsamość, niegrzeczność, dyskurs imigracyjny

1. Introduction and theoretical preliminaries

This analysis3 concentrates on online discourse and is based on texts written by

Polish immigrants to Norway. The material was collected from the internet,

primarily from several online forums run by Poles living in Norway, yet

occasionally extracts from blogs and comments to articles are also referred to.

The method of data analysis follows Culpeper’s (1996) taxonomy

of impoliteness strategies.

This section will provide an overview of relevant research, as well as

some theoretical considerations related to the concepts important for this

analysis, including specific features of online communication, and

the connection between immigration discourse, identity construction

and impoliteness. Section 2 presents the data collection and method, Section 3

is devoted to data analysis, and Section 4 provides concluding remarks.

1.1. Computer-mediated communication Online communication, by and large, is characterized by a number of features

that share elements of both spoken and written discourse. Even outside

3 This article is part of research activities of the project Discourses of the Nation and the National, based at ILOS, University of Oslo. The research was funded by the project.

Identity, impoliteness and integration in online immigration discourse

77

of the computer-mediated communication (CMC) provenance, often, the clear

divide between what makes a spoken discourse vs. written discourse is claimed

to be hazy, blurred and misleading (McCarthy 1993: 180). Interestingly,

contrary to popular views and expectations of online discourse being a closer

representation of the spoken discourse, rather than staying mid-way, research

conducted by Yates (1996) proves that online discourse, on the textual level,

shares affinities with the written language. This observation confirms

the statement put forward much earlier by Crystal (2001: 42-43) regarding

the nature of web discourse (which he proposed to call Netspeak).

The language used in CMC is characterized by diversity (email

correspondence, for example, ranges from very formal to very informal): it is

influenced by variables such as the purpose of interaction (e.g. an official

invitation versus a private one), gender, age, status of participants, etc. (Herring

2007 and Androutsopolous 2006 stress a shift of focus from medium-related to

user-related patterns of language use, which brings a variety of group practices

to the centre of attention).

The debate about social media and their role develops around two

questions: do social media enable greater cross-cultural sharing by allowing

people access to information and frequent participation in public life, or do

they lead to disengagement. Existing research provides different answers (see

Bouvier 2015 for an overview). Although people use social media for personal

identity construction, and frame events into some pre-existing personal

interests, they still contribute information of civic relevance (see Hilbert 2009).

1.2. Immigration discourse, identity construction and the role of impoliteness

Immigration discourse per se has already been an object of extensive research.

Several important publications have come out on immigration discourse

(e.g. van Dijk 1984, 1987, 1991; van Leeuwen and Wodak 1996; Wodak 1996),

yet not on Polish immigration in Norway.

Racism, ethnicism and discrimination are some of the topics analysed

in the context of immigration. In the multidisciplinary account of theoretical

as well as empirical developments in the field of Critical Discourse Analysis

(CDA), edited by Hart and Cap (2014), Richardson and Colombo (2014)

describe racism encoded in both verbal and visual elements found in selected

political leaflets. T. van Dijk (2015) summarizes research devoted to racism

conducted since the eighties within the theoretical framework of CDA, where

he notes that three main areas of research can be identified: firstly, studies into


78

immigration seen as an integration problem of the minority presented

in newspapers; secondly, studies into political discourse related to immigration;

and finally, immigration presented in educational context (e.g. textbooks).

Reisigl and Wodak (2001) provide us with a discourse-analytical approach to

texts where the three key concepts mentioned above are latent; they show us

how to unmask the discriminatory meanings hidden in texts by means of five

discursive strategies. These strategies are as follows: (1) Nomination or

reference: looks at how social actors, objects, phenomena and events are named

and referred to linguistically; (2) Predication: examines characteristics

and features attributed to the actors, objects and phenomena;

(3) Argumentation: justifies truth claims and often relies on topoi (part of

argument schemes that can connect the premise of an argument to its

conclusion); (4) Perspectivization: positions the point of view of the producer

of a text; (5) Intensification or mitigation: modifies the force and status

of utterances. These strategies can be part of broader macro-strategies

(e.g. misrepresentation, (de)legitimation).

Immigration discourse has been pursued in different national contexts.

For example, the Hispanic context of immigration discourse has been

expounded by Martínez Lirola (2013), the context of Austrian immigration was

examined by Krzyżanowski and Wodak 2009, the construction of French

and British immigration was delineated by Raymond and Modood (2007),

the European identity discourse was sought by Krzyżanowski (2010), while

Dikötter (1997) explored the concept of the construction of racial identities in

China and Japan.

Methodologically, immigration discourse has been sought with the aid

of several schools within the paradigm of CDA, or a combination of them.

For example, Wodak’s discourse-historical approach, Leeuwen’s socio-semantic

approach and van Dijk’s socio-cognitive approach have been successfully

merged and applied to the analysis of the British press by KhosraviNik (2010,

2014). Hart (2011, 2015), on the other hand, proposes fusing CDA with

cognitive linguistics and construal operations.

Immigration discourse opens many questions of self- and other-

perceptions. Immigration as a phenomenon involves continuous (re)definitions

of identity and membership in a community. Studying immigration discourse

(specifically, discourse by immigrants, be it their stories or other genres) aids

developing knowledge about self-perception and identity formation among

immigrants, and may lead to a better understanding of the factors that help

immigrants either to integrate or contribute to their isolation within the host

society. Immigration discourse reveals valuable data about immigrants’ complex


79

links to their home countries and host societies, giving insight into

communities that are often subject to stereotyping. A discursive approach to

identity in immigration discourse may focus on how the self is presented

in connection with others and in relation to social experiences. De Fina (2003)

analyzes these issues in a qualitative view on immigrants’ narratives by looking

at pronominal choices and voicing. Further, de Fina looks at the central

identification category for self and others, which is, according to her, ethnic

identification (“Hispanic” in her analysis).

While this paper hinges on the linguistic theoretical framework, it would

be a major omission not to mention publications devoted to Polish immigration

offered by other fields of knowledge, which provide a useful social and political

bedrock for any linguistic analysis of immigration discourse. An insightful

report on the state of the art of Polish immigration in Norway has been put

online recently. The report is the outcome of a conference organized

by the Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Oslo, in November 20154.

The publication has been prepared jointly by Polish and Norwegian scholars

and practitioners representing various branches of business. So far, it seems to

be one of the most recent and comprehensive accounts of the current situation

of Polish immigration to Norway after the accession of Poland to the EU.

An anthropological standpoint, on the other hand, on Polish immigrants

in Oslo has been presented by M. Pawlak in his doctoral thesis (2012).

A meticulous sociological study on how Polish immigration has evolved

in Norway over the last seven decades has been offered by E. Olszewski (2011).

Not much research on CMC has focused on (im)politeness. This topic is

central to the special issue edited by Locher (2010), who considers

the following dimensions crucial in the relation between (im)politeness

research and CMC: (a) written records of the negotiations of norms found

online (interactants publicly discuss violations of expectations); (b) how

interpersonal issues are negotiated in online interaction, how they relate to

identity construction and the negotiation of face; and (c) specific restrictions

that the medium of CMC imposes on relational work/facework, and its

consequences for linguistic choices.

In one of the few studies thematizing explicitly CMC, identity and

impoliteness (concentrating on online comments) Upadhyay (2010) concludes

that interactants use impoliteness to communicate disagreements, to argue

against an outgroup’s views, and to discredit (ideological) opponents. By using

impoliteness the interactants identify themselves as individuals whose views

4 Available at: http://oslo.msz.gov.pl/resource/0c005e6b-1a8e-4184-a454-deabde543fad:JCR


80

are opposed to those of outgroup members. Impoliteness constitutes them as

social agents promoting a belief held by ingroup members. In line with Herring

(2007), Upadhyay (2010) suggests a link of anonymity and antisocial

behaviour/impoliteness; Donath (1997) emphasises the possibility of online

communication being antisocial. Nishimura (2008) indicates that impoliteness

could potentially destroy an online community.

Scarce research on impoliteness in online discourse shows that

impoliteness plays a role in negotiating cultural and community norms and

constructing (un)desirable group and individual identities. As Garcés-Conejos

Blitvich (2010) proves by analysing YouTube comments, positive impoliteness

strategies5 may create a strong sense of us versus them, intensify in-group

cohesiveness and reinforce its delimitation from the out-group by evaluating

the attributes linked to the out-group as undesirable. In addition to fostering

polarization, impoliteness can significantly contribute to the construction

of collective identities. Impoliteness creates an excluding sense of us versus

them by systematically attacking and delegitimizing others’ points of view,

beliefs, attitudes and behaviour patterns. Analysing CMD, specifically, two

academic online discussion fora, Angouri and Tseliga (2010) indicate that

strategies associated with impoliteness are used to express strong disagreement

and to aggravate face-threatening acts. They demonstrate that different micro-

strategies in and of themselves do not account for instances of impoliteness;

evaluations of impoliteness relate to different factors, such as conversation

topic and participants’ identity.

Disagreement is a rich area for the study of marked behaviour, including

impoliteness. It entails opposing views, and the escalation of disagreement can

potentially culminate in the breaching of norms of “appropriate” behaviour and

be negatively evaluated by the participants. Disagreement does not necessarily

involve language use that may be perceived by the interactants as impolite.

Rather, it can challenge the boundaries of “politic” or appropriate linguistic

behaviour when it includes conflictual interactions (Graham 2007, Norrick and

Spitz 2008).

5 Strategies designed to damage an addressee’s positive face wants by, for example, excluding him or her, being disinterested, using taboo words etc. Negative impoliteness refers to strategies designed to damage an addressee’s negative face want by being condescending, frightening the addressee or invading the addressee’s space.


81

1.3. Impoliteness and impoliteness strategies Although it was Culpeper (1996) who introduced the topic of impoliteness into

the wider academic discussion, other approaches to impoliteness have also been

developed, notably by Bousfield (2008). Despite its popularity

as a methodological tool applied to studies anchored to varying cultural,

linguistic and social contexts over the last twenty years, Culpeper’s taxonomy

of impoliteness strategies has received a lot of critical comments from a number

of scholars. For example, as Bousfield notices, Culpeper claims that his model is

open-ended, viz. the strategies can be enriched to include other possible

examples of interactions. This flexibility of the model, according to Bousfield,

may be its weakness as it lacks a clear-cut set of finite strategies, and with the

whole inventory of possible examples, the model might be “impervious

to counterexamples”. Bousfield (2008: 92) also sees inconsistency in the new

impoliteness model proposed by Culpeper (2005), as the new definition

of “positive impoliteness” does not seem to be convergent with all strategies

which instantiate it. Moreover, Bousfield criticizes Culpeper for the excessive

reliance on Brown and Levinson’s typology of politeness in the sense that

in both Brown and Levinson’s politeness theory and Culpeper’s impoliteness

theory the analyses are decontextualised (Bousfield, 2008). Culpeper (2016)

admits that his later redefinitions of impoliteness did not rely so much on

Goffman’s concept of face and allowed other cases to arise (for example, by

depriving others of their rights rather than deliberate face-inflicting

behaviour).

Importantly, Culpeper (2016: 428) acknowledges, following a critique

of his strategies expounded by some other scholars, that the strategy “bold on

record impoliteness” is difficult to distinguish from both positive and negative

impoliteness and that this problematic category has been inadequately

exemplified in his study (1996); as a result, it is questionable. Likewise, some

other strategies and superstrategies are challenged on the grounds of being

unclear or overlapping. Further to that, Culpeper agrees with Blas Arroyo

(2001: 22 in Culpeper 2016) who notices that the criteria used in Culpeper’s

taxonomy are inconsistent: while some relate to purely linguistic

and discourse-oriented aspects, others involve physical or interactional

behaviour. The fluidity of his taxonomy is openly admitted by Culpeper (2016:

428), who states that “it is absolutely the case that one and the same strategy

can often be viewed from different perspectives” and, with respect to positive

vs. negative face, that “much depends on how the research orients to those

categories” (Culpeper 2016: 442). On the other hand, Culpeper (2011: 255-256)


82

also emphasises that impoliteness formulae and strategies are not isolated but

contextualised in impoliteness events, and thus he disagrees with Bousfield’s

criticism mentioned above.

An important factor pertinent to the study of im/politeness is the notion

of intentionality, as well as the recognition of intention which relates to

rudeness. Culpeper (2005) admits that in his early definition of impoliteness

intentionality was the key concept: impoliteness occurs when the sender is

intentionally impolite (attacks the addressee’s face) and the hearer perceives

the intentionality of the sender’s face attack (2005: 38). This requirement

of intentionality was later cancelled by Culpeper himself. After all, one may be

unintentionally impolite or impoliteness could not be assessed by the addressee

as such. These observations have shifted the centre of gravity in impoliteness

studies onto the addressee by suggesting that impoliteness should be analysed

solely from the perspective of the receiver. The redefined version

of the concept emphasizes not only the role of the addressee but also the notion

of expectancy, i.e. impoliteness takes place when there is a conflict between

the current behaviour of the sender and what one expects, wants or thinks

should be said or done (Culpeper et al. 2003; Culpeper 2011: 254).

The notion of expectancies relates Culpeper’s recent research to Kádár and

Haugh (2013) views: the authors see im/politeness as a social practice implying

that im/politeness does not relate to a particular linguistic form per se. Instead,

im/politeness resides in evaluations of those forms in a social setting. It arises

through evaluations of social actions and meanings. These evaluations are

rooted in a moral order (Kádár and Haugh 2013: 73, 251).

The issue of intentionality, or lack of it, in the context of juxtaposing

impoliteness with rudeness, has been taken up, inter alia, by Bousfield (2010)

and Terkourafi (2008). While Bousfield proposes a set of criteria used to

distinguish between the two notions, Terkourafi associates impoliteness with

unintentional and rudeness with intentional face aggravation.

Interestingly, Watts (1989) drifts away from the dichotomous division

between what is polite and what is impolite and in lieu of these notions,

understood as mutually exclusive, he proposes a tripartite typology

encompassing three types of behaviour – politic, non-politic and polite –

whereby more fluidity is allowed between politeness and impoliteness

(interpretation is based on marked vs. unmarked behavior). Terkourafi (2008)

takes one step further and suggests a unified theory to engulf not only

impoliteness and rudeness but also to combine them with the notion

of politeness. This approach only shows how fluid and difficult it may be for

researchers to capture these concepts. Notwithstanding past and current


83

discussion, a clear dividing line between impoliteness and rudeness remains

difficult to pinpoint.

Despite the criticism expressed on Culpeper’s taxonomy of impoliteness

and some adjustments introduced to the model by Culpeper himself, it still

remains a very influential proposal. The method of analysis used in this paper

follows thus Culpeper’s (1996) taxonomy of impoliteness strategies, as the

critical comments expressed about impoliteness classification, notably by

Bousfield, do not seem to be relevant for our study, and the taxonomy per se

presents the problem of impoliteness in a comprehensive and concise way.

The strategies presented in our analysis are illustrative of both positive and

negative impoliteness; however, not all strategies proposed by Culpeper are

fully represented in our data. This is partially due to the fact that the data

illustrate web-based type of interaction, where replies are delayed, the

participants are deprived of non-verbal behaviour and the whole load

of information is packed in the verbal mode, occasionally accompanied by

emoticons, which makes the material under scrutiny different from other types

of data analysed by impoliteness theorists (e.g. face-to-face interaction).

The linguistic capacity in online interaction is thus crucial due to technical

constraints of the medium of communication (including both space and time

restrictions). The template for the present analysis is therefore as follows (cited

after Culpeper 1996: 357-358):

Positive impoliteness strategies

1. Ignore, snub the other – fail to acknowledge the other’s presence.

2. Exclude the other from an activity.

3. Disassociate from the other – for example, deny association or common

ground with the other; avoid sitting together.

4. Be disinterested, unconcerned, unsympathetic.

5. Use inappropriate identity markers – for example, use title and surname

when a close relationship pertains, or a nickname when a distant

relationship pertains.

6. Use obscure or secretive language – for example, mystify the other with

jargon, or use a code known to others in the group, but not the target.

7. Seek disagreement – select a sensitive topic.

8. Make the other feel uncomfortable – for example, do not avoid silence, joke,

or use small talk.

9. Use taboo words – swear or use abusive or profane language.

10. Call the other names – use derogatory nominations.


84

Negative impoliteness strategies

1. Frighten – instill a belief that action detrimental to the other will occur.

2. Condescend, scorn or ridicule – emphasize your relative power. Be

contemptuous. Do not treat the other seriously. Belittle the other (e.g. use

diminutives).

3. Invade the other’s space – literally (e.g. position yourself closer to the other

than the relationship permits) or metaphorically (e.g. ask for or speak about

information which is too intimate given the relationship).

4. Explicitly associate the other with a negative aspect – personalize, use

the pronouns ‘I’ and ‘you’.

5. Put the other's indebtedness on record.

2. Data collection and method

2.1. Data collection As our data come largely from forums, they reveal many commonalities with

the spoken discourse (more than e.g. blogs), in particular informal language.

The informality may be noticed not only in the choice of words typical of the

spoken discourse (interjections, slang, swearing) but also in occasional spelling

mistakes, frequent lack of capitalization, neglected punctuation marks

and diacritics, and, oftentimes, relaxed syntax (e.g. unfinished sentences,

violated grammatical rules). The texts are also marked for spontaneity,

the language is frequently emotional, the topics tend to shift abruptly, and they

express highly subjective opinions6. These features are typically representative

of the spoken discourse (Biber et al. 1999).

The data have been collected as part of the project on immigration

discourse run by the University of Oslo. They have been teased out from online

materials, largely from forums, yet some references will also be made to articles

(and commentaries underneath) and blogs devoted to Polish immigration

in Norway.

About one hundred fifty identified participants have been registered

in our data under anonymous names (authors of posts) or as authors of blogs

6 Žižek (1997), however, indicates that language in forums and blogs lacks “subjectivization” – users of a forum can intervene and disappear, leave a harsh comment and leave or come back later. They can escape the consequences of what they have said. Discussion threads can therefore quickly disintegrate. Additional issue is the proportion between participants and lurkers – Johnson (2001) indicates that due to the imbalance between the two a forum can be less interactive than a face-to- face lecture or a conversation around the dinner table.


85

and feature or opinion articles on immigration portals. The corpus, which

currently amounts to ca. 17,000 tokens (ca. 130 online comments), is still

growing7. The material which constitutes our corpus has not been copied

automatically from online resources; rather, it has been manually carved out

from online texts with the aim of creating a pool of data representing opinions

expressed by Polish immigration living in Norway on Norway and Norwegians

vs. Poland and Poles, with the view of revealing the sense of national identity

of the Polish immigrants in Norway and the degree of their integration into the

host society and culture. For this very reason, extended original passages were

often omitted while compiling the corpus and what was ultimately considered

as valid for the corpus were only fragments extracted from threads on forums,

which were queried for carefully selected words (e.g. homeland, Polishness,

nation, patriotism, etc.) that were expected to elicit the concept of national

identity. Of the over 130 online comments found on the internet, which

constitute our current immigration corpus, 25 were selected for this analysis.

These were carefully selected out of the host of examples of impoliteness

in order to show a representative sample of both the problems of identity

of Polish immigrants in Norway and the type of impoliteness endorsed

in the study. The corpus material contains narratives (for example, when

discourse participants write about what they consider impolite in relation to

some Poles or Norwegians) as well as non-narratives, in particular descriptions

or sheer exclamations.

2.2. Method of analysis The present study focuses on online discourse, where no face-to-face

and immediate interaction is possible, and hence impoliteness is not readily

observable on-site; rather, reactions result from reading a written message.

This requires some adaptation of the existing typologies of impoliteness. For

example, cases of exclusion, dissociation from others or ignoring somebody’s

presence are not directly discernible in the discourse situations under study, yet

they are described by forum users as part of their own observations. Therefore,

although vicarious and, thus, dwindled, they constitute important narrations or

description of impoliteness germane to our study. Aside from these space and

time constraints stemming from the lack of immediate communication, these

7The data presented in this section constitute of part of an on-going international project Discourses of the Nation and the National, led by the University in Oslo, Department of Literature, Areas Studies and European Languages.


86

verbal expressions are also a good source of information and may convincingly

provide samples of impolite behaviour. Of the ten types of positive impoliteness

distinguished by Culpeper, the following have been found and are described

in what follows: ignore, snub the other, fail to acknowledge the other’s

presence; exclude the other from an activity; dissociate from the other;

be disinterested, unconcerned, unsympathetic; use obscure or secretive

language; use taboo words, swear or use abusive or profane language; and call

the other names, use derogatory nominations. The categories of negative

impoliteness represented in our data include: frighten; condescend, scorn or

ridicule – emphasise your relative power, be contemptuous, belittle the other;

and explicitly associate the other with a negative aspect. These categories tend

to overlap in some cases, hence the final typology used in this paper is

simplified and it falls into three categories: (1) ignore and exclude; (2) dissociate

and be unsympathetic (including examples illustrating the category of obscure

or secretive language); and (3) call the other names and use derogatory

nominations and vulgar words, condescend, scorn and ridicule.

Taking into account the fact that the examples presented below illustrate

derogatory nominations used in the contexts of condescending remarks

and explicit association of the other with a negative aspect, the third category

merges positive impoliteness with negative impoliteness. Examples of swearing

and abusive or profane language are present across the above-mentioned

categories.

2.3. Ignore and exclude The first category identified in our analysis of online discussions and narratives

is “Ignore, snub the other – fail to acknowledge the other’s presence”.

The fragment below presents a specific situation where Poles complain about

unfair treatment at work in a Norwegian setting: they claim that they feel

ignored and excluded. In light of the common perception of Norway as being

famous for its egalitarianism and equality, such cases as the samples below run

counter to one’s expectations, revealing a different attitude of some Norwegians

to immigrants, beyond the legal cover, especially to labour workers, and cast

doubts on whether foreigners are treated in the same way as Norwegians.

A handful of examples narrating unfair treatment and marginalization of,

or even discrimination against Polish workers at work can be found in our

corpus in relation to lower salary standards and poorer working conditions.

In sample (1) Poles feel ignored by cooks at canteens and believe that

Norwegians are treated more favourably.


87

(1) A Norwegian comes last to the canteen but he talks to the cook and gets his

pork chop first, even though Poles ordered the very same pork chop much

earlier.8 [MN.AK.16.15]

The second category of description used in the narratives under inspection,

although closely related to the first one, and sometimes even overlapping, is

“Exclude the other from an activity”. The example below encodes both the

category of exclusion, in the context of health problems, and the ignorance

of trade unions. The topic of dismissing Poles while being on sick leave is

discussed on forums in thematic threads devoted specifically to such cases9.

(2) I’ve been working in Norway for eight years. I have been on sick leave

for 7 months and I have already had 2 meetings [with the boss]. Unfortunately,

clearly the employer wants to get rid of me from the factory because he even

doesn’t try to propose a different post for me, instead he recommends dismissal.

My health problems stem from the type of work I’ve been doing and that’s why

the best solution for me is a change of my workplace. I myself suggested three

different posts I am qualified for. Unfortunately, I met with a refusal,

and the main reason was, apparently, a lack of posts. To make the thing funnier,

after a short period of time some posts were found for other people, and for one

type of work 5 new employees were hired. I have had no conflict with

the employer, and I have done my work honestly and diligently. I have no idea

what the problem is and why it is easier for the employer to hire new people

rather than let an experienced employer return to work. Before long I will have

the third meeting and I’m afraid that since the employer has hired new

employees for the posts I could have he will announce to me that there is no

work for me and in agreement with NAV he will press on me to give up my job

myself. I have contacted a person from trade unions, who works in our factory,

but he turned out to be rather ineffective. I don’t really know who I can ask for

help. I feel discriminated and I think that my rights were violated. [FN.103.16]

More examples that challenge the Norwegian egalitarianism and equality are

presented below. In fact, they expose the superficiality or inefficiency

of the system, as can be observed in the narrative of exclusion of some Poles

from the labour market. Poles are badly treated by their employers, civil

servants and other Norwegians they encounter in their milieu on an everyday

basis. This phenomenon, known as social and wage dumping, has been

8 The translated versions of the original citations are somewhat polished, with some extra words occasionally added in square brackets to sketch the missing information from context and thus to enhance comprehensibility. 9 For example the thread “Zwolninie na sykelmeldingu” or “Pracodawca ignoruje pracownika na zwolnieniu lekarskim” (forum-norwegia.pl)


88

identified in sociological research as being tightly associated with Polish

workers coming to Norway who often fall victims to illegal practices and social

injustice. This happens due to, for example, no knowledge of the Norwegian

labour market, the judicial system, the Norwegian language and their rights as

workers. As a result, they are unable to pitch to the local labour market

demands and, if need be, claim their rights on their own (see Anioł 2014

and Garstecki, 2014, for more details). Their ignorance of the Norwegian law

and its labour market has a bearing on Polish workers’ social and legal status.

Reportedly, they are excluded from pay roll lists, they are refused their legal

remuneration, dismissed from work, rejected by property owners

in the property hiring process, etc.

(3) Poles in Norway have problems with the employers-they are badly treated,

remuneration is not paid, [they have problems] with the neighbours, with

exacting their laws in local governments, with renting a flat, children have

problems with integration at school. [FN.F.30.07]

(4) Hello, I have a similar problem, it’s about the directive, the agency cheats us

and we are not paid the rates [which apply to other workers] in the factory, we

are working in a fish factory, what can we do about it and where to submit

[a complaint about] it. [MN.AK.15.13]

The issue of unpaid remunerations causes a lot of unrest and anxiety among

Polish labour workers. The problem has recently been publicized in both

Norwegian and Polish newspapers due to several well-known cases of Poles

suing Norwegian employers10. The cases have also prompted heated discussions

on Polish forums and portals run by Poles living in Norway11. Many cases were

won (by Polish lawyers from Norway), which only proves that the complaints

shared online may not be completely unwarranted12.

Exclusion is perceived as being based on the country of origin, that is,

Norwegian perceptions and attitudes related to it. These attitudes are triggered

by some overt “identity labels”, such as names. This seems to be a pressing

problem to the extent that some Poles consider taking a rather desperate step

10 For example: http://wyborcza.pl/1,76842,14331715,Upominasz_sie_o_swoje_prawa__zostajesz_ zwolniony__.html http://www.dagbladet.no/2015/06/08/nyheter/innenriks/skatt/arbeidsliv/39522323/ 11 For example the thread “Polka wyrzucona z pracy za...mówienie po polsku” on the portal mojanorwegia.pl 12 More cases won by Garstecki Advokatfirma are described at: http://www.garstecki.no/news-i-media/.


89

of changing their first or even second name as they find it difficult to get a job

with a name which does not sound like Norwegian.

(5) Recently some friends of mine declared that they were going to change their

first and last name because they had had great difficulties to find a job with

personal data that sounded non-norwegian13. [FN.96.14]

(6) …but the very fact that you have a non-Norwegian forename causes

a situation that you become a person of second category. If you have also a non-

Norwegian surname, you fall to a third category. Let’s note that so far we have

not come to any concrete facts, we don’t know anything about a man, we don’t

know his age, education, past, we don’t know what he looks like… We only

know his forename and surname, both non-Norwegian and we are already

people of a third category. [MN.AK.1.15]

Narratives about exclusion and discrimination based on the country of origin,

lack of competence in Norwegian and a name that sounds foreign (Polish) is,

unfortunately, confirmed by a Polish lawyer living in Norway, who openly

admits, on the strength of his professional practice as a barrister14, that

the problem of social and wage dumping, discrimination and breaking the law

while hiring Polish immigrants is commonplace.

Strangely enough, Poles do not defer from complaining that they are

discriminated against by other Poles, for example, employees in a job agency.

There is even an informal saying circulating in the Polish community that

the worst boss one can have is a Polish boss. Similar examples to (6) illustrate

in-group divisions.

(7) in adecco a Polish woman looked through my papers, turned round and said

that there was no work. [FN.49.07]

2.4. Dissociate and be unsympathetic The third category according to Culpeper is “Dissociate from the other”.

Interestingly, this category found in online discussions/narrative may be

illustrated by two types of dissociation.

The first example below describes a well-known fact that Polish

immigration divides the community into two distinct groups: those who are

hostile towards other Poles and those who are helpful and supportive.

13 All the translations preserve the features of the original text, i.e. there may be no capitalization, and erroneous or no punctuation marks. 14 See the full article at: http://wiadomosci.wp.pl/kat,1356,title,Polacy-w-Norwegii-druga-kategoria-obywateli-Wraca-sprawa-Polaka-skazanego-za-pozar-w-Drammen,wid,17289727, wiadomosc.html?ticaid=116bcb 243


90

Unfortunately, most comments online evidence the frequent phenomenon

subscribing to the first case. As a result, some Poles dissociate themselves from

the bothersome compatriots who are jealous, hostile and unsupportive, and,

oftentimes, quarrelsome, vulgar and heavy drinkers (they are often called

“polaczki”). Such framing conceptualizes two opposite camps and induces

the identification of the author with outsiders relative to the criticized group,

yet within the Polish immigration community. This dissociation is

demonstrated, for example, by avoiding speaking Polish in public places or

pretending not to understand Polish while in public places:

(8) Poland can be divided into poles and “polaczki”. The latter are glad when

a compatriot fails to achieve success abroad. They forgot why they left their

country. Personally, I only encounter the latter [group of Poles] so when I hear

Poles I never speak Polish and I do not admit that I’m Polish, because you never

know who you come across…it is strange as other expats try to stick together.

[FB.2.16]

Polish immigration that has managed to integrate into the Norwegian society

and immerse into the Norwegian culture tends to dissociate from part

of the Polish immigration community, especially from those who do not thrive

on the labour market or have temporary jobs (usually as construction site

workers) and often travel back to Poland (dubbed “polaczki”, or “cebulaki”; see

below for details).

(9) I am the one who is embarrassed to be Polish, unfortunately, that’s why I am

no longer [a Pole], I’m changing my surname,... I’m adding this for you, fuck,

you simple Polish man, as you are not even able to realize what a simple

thickhead you are. [MN.F.22.15]

The term frequently used in relation to Polish immigration in a pejorative way

is “economic worker” (“pracownik zarobkowy”). It is used even by Poles

themselves to describe their status, especially by those who do not feel

integrated with the Norwegian society and perceive themselves as temporary

workers and migrants, rather than permanent immigrants.

(10) You know what? Generally, I don’t care what norway15 does with their

immigrants as it’s their problem. I’m here, as somebody has written,

an economic worker (i.e. labour migration). [MN.AK.9.15]

15 All punctuation and spelling mistakes in the translated texts (translations from Polish by: A.B.) are left in the English citations on purpose as they reflect the errors present in the original texts or language simplifications so typical of the informal language used in social media, which tends to imitate the spoken discourse.


91

In a discussion on Polish emigration in the EU, Poles were described as “murzyni

Europy” (the Negroes of Europe) by one of the forum users, which is telling and,

regrettably, matches the general picture of a Polish emigrant seen as a skilled

and cheap (often underpaid) blue collar worker (cf. the “Polish plumber”16).

In a fragment below, a Polish employee describes her employer, who also treats

Poles like sambos, a cheap labour, people who are exploited at work and have no

labour rights.

(11) if Poles agree to work for 4 pounds then let them work their arse...shame,

it’s their choice...pity, as because of them we are perceived as the “Negros

of Europe”. [MN.7.15]

Many Poles are perceived as poor East European immigrants who come to

Norway seeking better economic living conditions. With Poles entering

the Norwegian labour market after the accession of Poland to the EU in 2004,

the appearance of cheap labour on the Norwegian market (and even more on

the British market) can be observed. To avoid social and wage dumping,

in 2007 minimum wage in the construction branch was established in Norway

(Garstecki 2014: 36), yet this has not changed the perception of a cheap

immigration labour force by both Norwegians and other immigrants, including

Poles. The bifurcation of the Norwegian labour market is still observed in its

structure, with well-paid, safe, stable and secure jobs offered mainly to

Norwegians and employees with high qualifications vs. mostly temporary, low-

paying jobs and lower standards accepted largely by temporary migrants,

popular in such labour market segments as construction work and some

services (caring, cleaning, repair, harvesting, processing) (Anioł 2014: 22).

The other group of comments, illustrating the category of dissociation,

is targeted at Norwegians. As indicated by our data, Norwegians demonstrate

explicitly that foreigners, including Poles, will always remain immigrants,

i.e. second-class citizens, and that there is no hope for immigrants ever to be

treated by the natives like compatriots. Here, the indigenous allocate Poles

to the outsider group. Example (12) negatively evaluates Norwegians in relation

to their attitude to work:

(12) Constantly, every day, they make it clear to us that we are only hirelings...:)

It was difficult for me too but if you want to stay here then get used to it, ease up

or go home... [MN.F.10.12]

16 The image of a “Polish plumber” was popularized in France in 2005 as a negative symbol of excessive cheap labour coming to France from Central Europe.


92

(13) You are a Pole and Your child is also a Pole – NEVER, at least in the eyes

of an average Norwegian, will you be a Norwegian. ALWAYS (in the perception

of a Norwegian, a bit less in the case of a Swede) on the territory of the Kingdom

[of Norway] will one be a “lower” category type – don’t be taken in by

the warm, insipid smile of the Norwegians, nor by the enforced formal equal

rights (this must be admitted). [MN.F.14.15]

(14) has anybody seen a sweaty norwegian at work? I have! Not once!

He climbed on the second floor and was really sweaty. They are not used to

work. They have money and people who work for them. That’s all one can say

about them. [MN.F.3.15]

A reason for isolation of the Polish community from the Norwegian society is

sometimes sought in the lack of knowledge of the Norwegian language, which

is noticed by Poles themselves. Some Poles seem to refuse to learn Norwegian

or to improve their competence in the language of the host country, which can

be easily honed in practice while living in Norway. They are also reluctant

to enhance their competence in English, which can be easily used as

the language of everyday communication in Norway. As a result, with no

communicative skills in either of the two languages used in Norway, they are

doomed to isolation. This issue is often discussed online.

Interestingly, in line with the narratives shared by some forum users,

Poles with no language skills tend to be more critical of Norway

and Norwegians.

(15) indeed, most of the persons I met expresses negative opinions about

Norwegians. I analysed who are those friends of mine and they are mainly

working class people, they often work illegally, don’t speak Norwegian at all,

and their English is, at best, at pass mark level. So, their opinion stems from their

own complexes and from the fact that they themselves isolate [from the society]

through their lack of competence in any of the two languages. [FN.95.14]

(16) Ah well, what I meant was that we are treated badly at work ☹ I was in

a situation when “norek” told me that I was there to bust [my arse] so to speak

and that I was to do the worst job here and that he treated in this way all

the foreigners who worked there, that for him we were the negroes ☹ I went to

see the boss about it but he did not see any problem in that, according to him

everything is ok. [MN.F.9.12]

2.5. Call the other names – use derogatory nominations and vulgar words

The next category of positive politeness analysed in this paper is naming.

This referential strategy is represented by a great number of examples


93

in the corpus: it is usually realized through derogatory nomination and member

categorization. Examples of nomination found in the corpus illustrate two

cases: naming Norwegians and naming Poles.

On the whole, in the online discussions Poles notice a number of positive

aspects in the Norwegians, their lifestyle, habits, traditions and mentality, and

the comments in posts are replete with admiration and praise of a stereotypical

Norwegian. However, since forums, Facebook, YouTube, etc., are places

of unrestrained self-expression, where people can present their opinions freely,

usually with little or no restrictions at all (moderators on forums occasionally

delete some posts), severe criticism is not uncommon. When presented

in the negative terms, Norwegians are described by the Internet users by

resorting to several labels. Quite often, Norwegians at large are seen as “gbury”

(boors, yobs) [MN.AK.1.14; FN.F.24.14], as well as “pyszałki” (coxcombs)

[FN.F.24.14]. On a less critical note, they are conceived of as not too clever,

uncomplicated and shallow as well as with double morality [FN.F.12.08],

and rather cold and clammed, at least on the surface [NP.B.1.14].

Poles receive enormous criticism from their compatriots. The derogatory

labels most often endorsed include the coined neologism “polonorki” as well as

some other more frequently used terms, such as “polaczki”, “buraki”, “cebulaki”

(or its diminutive “cebulaczki”). “Polaczki” is an ironic diminutive form

of the word Poles (in original: Polacy), which has general negative

connotations. The term is used to denote quarrelsome and petty-minded

people, as well as rapacious and cunning, people who look down on other

immigrants, referring to them by such terms as “ciapate” (“camel jockey”,

a racially-tinged slang term denoting Pakistanis, Indians or other dark-skinned

immigrants). “Polaczki” are also qualified as racists, and the negative features

of a typical “Polaczek” achieve the worst dimension in the case of those who

have a relatively low social status:

(17) Unfortunately, the lower the social status of a “polaczek”, the greater racist

and conceited lout he is. [MN.AK.4.15]

Discussion about the national status and the feeling of affiliation to Polish

immigration diaspora or the Norwegian society is often spotted with

vulgarisms, which shows how much emotions are triggered by the problem

of integration and the sense of national identity.

(18) And who the fuck do you think you are?....you polaczek [vocative].

[MN.F.5.15]


94

“Buraki” (pl., beetroots) and “cebulaki” (pl., a neologism coined from the word

“cebula”, i.e. an onion) also imply negative associations: while a “burak”

is an ill-mannered, not-too-intelligent bumpkin, “cebulak” also makes

reference to bumpkins but in addition to that triggers an image of a person who

is jealous and envious, and who is excessively mean and loutish.

(19) Polaczek cebulaczek-buraczek feels good when he insults others, calls them

names, like ciapate and czarnuch [Nigro], he will be proud that he speaks

Norwegian to his child at home and, generally speaking, he is more Norwegian

than the Norwegians. [MN.F.4.15]

As for “polonorki”, this term is a compound noun which combines “polo”,

associated with Poles (more precisely with “polaczek”), and “norki”, associated

with Norwegians. “Norek” is the worst epitomization of a Norwegian, one who

does not pay wages on time and exploits his or her employees. The concept

of “polonorek” has been described on one of the portals run by Poles

in Norway17 where a number of citations from forums were adduced

(mojanorwegia.pl and forum-norwegia.pl). “Polonorek” thus denotes a person

who shares features of both nations – unfortunately, however, the worst

features typically ascribed to Poles and Norwegians.

A Polonorek is a person who expresses strong contempt for Poles living

in Norway as well as for Poland and Poles living in Poland, who tries to

integrate with the indigenous (thus speaks Norwegian and meets only

Norwegians) and glorifies Norway, and at the same time ostensively cuts off

from his Polish roots, so that he tries “to be more Norwegian than

the Norwegians”. They are often representatives of the nouveau riche social

class, who made a fortune through illegal business, often hiring compatriots

and mistreating them or putting the skids under them. One forum user

described “polonorek” as follows:

(20) Personally, to me Polonorek is a kind of nation-less person, neither Polish

nor Norwegian – a kind of shit glued to a shoe of a Norwegian farmer.

[MN.AK.16.14]

The material found in our corpus abounds in language soaked in insults.

The categories that will be illustrated by our corpus material involve two types

of negative impoliteness proposed by Culpeper, namely (1) condescend, scorn

or ridicule (emphasize your relative power, be contemptuous, do not treat

the other seriously, belittle the other) and (2) explicitly associate the other with

a negative aspect (personalize, use the pronouns ‘I’ and ‘you’). These categories

17 http://www.mojanorwegia.pl/czytelnia/kim-sa-polonorki-8976.html


95

are merged into one as in most cases the empirical material is illustrative

of both notions.

While participating in a heated discussion on Poles in Norway, some

participants of a popular forum started to attack each other; in particular one

of the forum users was aggressive and used vulgar words. Eventually, he

switched into Norwegian as, obviously, he suspected that the other person he

quarrelled with did not know Norwegian well enough (if at all) to be able

to exchange arguments with him. The fact that he started to use Norwegian

dissociates him from his interlocutor. The discussion was about the situation

of Poles in the labour market. The type of negative impoliteness illustrated by

the citation below is “condescend, scorn or ridicule”. The author is

contemptuous and emphasises his power over the addressee.

(21) Can you participate in this quarrel too. You are another dyed Pole. Who are

you – another Polish Tosk [?]. Try to quarrel with me you “swine”. [MN.F.9.15]

The interlocutor was labelled “swine” and “dyed Pole”; the former term is

vulgar, while the latter encodes aggression towards Poles who pretend to be

Norwegians and who tend to be cut off from their Polish identity. Other forum

users evaluated this impoliteness explicitly by noticing that the two

interlocutors were extremely impolite to each other. Crucially, one user made

a digression on the matter at hand, speculating that if Poles treat other Poles

living abroad with disrespect, this may be the reason, according to the forum

user, why Norwegians show disrespect towards Poles living in Norway.

This fragment also concurs with another category proposed by Culpeper as part

of positive impoliteness, namely “Use obscure or secretive language – for

example, mystify the other with jargon, or use a code known to others in the

group, but not the target”. Yet another example with the word swine shows

how Poles express their severe criticism towards other Poles, for example when

pinpointing such features as manifesting superiority to other nations.

(22) You are a classic Polish swine, who confirms the existence of a Polish

swine, i.e. that there is such a creature in the world as the Polish swine that

doesn’t know who he is, and who would like to trample anybody who seems

to be different, but he is not aware that these narrow hooves are of little avail

because he is only slaughterhouse game. [MN.F.6.15]

The next fragment may illustrate one of the previous category of dissociation,

yet it is ascribed to the category of calling names as it contains vulgar language

and derogatory nominations (dog, burak). It also encodes the intention of being

condescending to the interlocutor, which is achieved by explicit association


96

of the interlocutor with a negative aspect using the pronoun „you”

and the label „burak”.

(23) you dyed norwegian dog...you yourself are a burak from somewhere around

Warsaw [MN.F.7.15]

Another example of negative impoliteness illustrated by the category

of “condescend, scorn or ridicule” as well as “explicitly associate the other with

a negative aspect” is connected with the notion of Polonorki. Polonorki trigger

disrespect, disdain and contempt; the emergence of this group of Poles is

evident in discussions about national identity. Severe criticism and strong

emotions often entail the use of vulgarisms. Both polonorki and

buraki/polaczki/cebulaki trigger criticism and strong emotions.

(24) if you don’t want to be a Pole then I don’t care...but don’t offend other

Poles you norwegian whore. [MN.F.3.15]

The next example of negative impoliteness is a post in which a Pole criticizes

another forum user for boasting that s/he does not know Norwegian (or for

pretending not to know it) at work, as that sheds bad light on the whole Polish

immigration community. The author of the post occasionally switches into

Norwegian while decrying the ignorant user. In this way, the author expresses

dissociation from the Polish minority having a smattering of Norwegian

language, by creating some “us” versus “them” division within the Polish

immigration community. In the example below a condescending voice can be

sensed, as well as scorn and ridicule, which would justify its classification in

the “condescend, scorn and ridicule” category, according to Culpeper’s

typology. The author directly belabours the addressee with insults (damn

pussy, monkey] and uses a very strong language.

(25) You are so “jævlig pingle” [damn pussy] if you don’t know who that is then

ask out as probably you are often called like that at work, or “ape” [monkey], he,

he, he. [MN.F.8.15]

3. Concluding remarks

The impoliteness strategies presented above illustrate impoliteness expressed or

shown by Poles towards other Poles living in Norway, by Poles towards

Norwegians or by Norwegians towards Poles. Most interestingly, the majority

of comments show impoliteness expressed by Poles towards other Poles, which

is a striking observation suggesting that some Polish immigrants do not seem

to feel the need to integrate and/or identify with their compatriots, or at least


97

a part of them. In consequence, social ingroups and outgroups are created

within the Polish immigration community, with comments targeted at

“the others”, mainly the other Poles, imbued with hatred and insulting

language. Insulting language is a means of establishing distance between “us”

and “them”.

Given the online data of immigration discourse gathered in the project

on national identity re/construction, the Polish diaspora in Norway seems to be

integrated but only to some extent, i.e. within the subgroups that clearly

emerge. Poles are divided into those who maintain their Polish identity

and those who feel more Norwegian than Polish. A strong contempt is

expressed in online discourse by a group of Poles for both those Poles who

identify only with the Norwegians (the so-called Polonorki) as well as for those

Poles who do not wish to take any measures to adjust to (integrate with)

the host country (e.g. those who do not learn the Norwegian language, are

critical of Norway and the Norwegians, etc.).

Very strong emotions are unlocked in the discussions of identity and

integrity found in our online material. Semi-public discussions of identity

issues are frequently coupled with strong emotions, and these are related to

various impoliteness realizations. The anonymity of the internet certainly

promotes impunity of its users, which in turn provokes unrestrained, blatantly

impolite or even vulgar verbal behaviours expressing debasing, disparaging or

vituperative attitudes. The corpus of online data briefly presented in this study

is only a case in point, as it is replete with copious examples of impolite

language and explicit description of impolite behaviour.

REFERENCES Angouri, J., and T. Tseliga. (2010). “You have no idea what you are talking about!” From

e-disagreement to e-impoliteness in two online for a. Journal of Politeness Research. Language, Behaviour, Culture 6/1, 57–82.

Androutsopoulos, J. (2006). Introduction: sociolinguistics and computer-mediated communication. Journal of Sociolinguistics 10/4, 419-438.

Anioł, W. (2014). Poles in the Norwegian labour market: benefits and challenges. In: M. Mrozińska-Kruk (ed.). Polish community in Norway. Opportunities and challenges, Oslo, 15-24.

Biber, D. et al. (1999). Longman Grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow: Longman. Bousfield, D. (2008). Impoliteness in Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Bousfield, D. (2010). Researching impoliteness and rudeness: issues and definitions. In: M.A. Locher

and S.L. Graham (eds). Interpersonal pragmatics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 101-134.


98

Bouvier, G. (2015). What is a discourse approach to Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and other social media: connecting with other academic fields? Journal of Multicultural Discourses 10/2, 149-162.

Crystal, D. (2001). Language and the Internet, Cambridge: CUP. Culpeper, J. (1996). Towards an anatomy of impoliteness. Journal of Pragmatics 25/3, 349-367. Culpeper, J., D. Bousfield and A. Wichmann. (2003). Impoliteness revisited: with special

reference to dynamic and prosodic aspects, Journal of Pragmatics 35/10-11, 1545-1579. Culpeper, J. (2005). Impoliteness and entertainment in the television quiz show: The Weakest

Link. Journal of Politeness Research: Language. Behavior and Culture 1/1, 35-72. Culpeper, J. (2011). Impoliteness: Using language to cause offence. Cambridge: CUP. Culpeper, J. (2016). Impoliteness strategies. In: A. Capone and J. L. May (eds). Interdisciplinary

studies in pragmatics, culture and society, Cham: Springer, 421-445. De Fina, A. (2003). Identity in narrative: A study of immigrant discourse Amsterdam: John

Benjamins. Dikotter, F. (ed.). (1997). The construction of racial identities in China and Japan: historical

and contemporary perspectives. University of Hawaii Press. Donath, J. S. (1997). Identity and deception in the virtual community. In: P. Kollock

and M. Smith (eds). Communities in cyberspace, London: Routledge, 27-58. Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, P. (2010). The YouTubification of politics, impoliteness

and polarization. In: R. Taiwo (ed.). Handbook of research on discourse behavior and digital communication: Language structures and social interaction, Hershey: IGI Global, 540-563.

Garstecki, S. (2014). Poles in Norway – from a judicial point of view. In: M. Mrozińska-Kruk (ed.). Polish community in Norway. Opportunities and challenges, Oslo: Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 34-42.

Graham, S. L. (2007). Disagreeing to agree: Conflict, (im)politeness and identity in a computer-mediated community. Journal of Pragmatics, 39/4, 742-759.

Hart, C. (2011). Force-interactive patterns in immigration discourse: a cognitive linguistic approach to CDA, Discourse & Society, 22/3, 269-286.

Hart, C. (2015). Viewpoint in linguistic discourse: space and evaluation in news reports of political protests, Critical Discourse Studies, 12/3, 238-260.

Herring, S. C. (2007), A faceted classification scheme for computer-mediated discourse, “Language@Internet”, v. 4. Retrieved from: http://www.languageatinternet.org/articles/ 2007/761 (Accessed October 25, 2016)

Hilbert, M. (2009). The maturing concept of e-democracy: from e-voting and online consultations to democratic value out of jumbled online chatter. Journal of Information Technology & Politics 6, 87–110.

Johnson, S. (2001). Emergence: the connected lives of ants, brains, cities, and software. New York: Scribner.

Kádár, D. and M. Haugh. (2013). Understanding Politeness. Cambridge: CUP. KhosraviNik, M. (2010). The representation of refugees, asylum seekers and immigrants in

British newspapers: a critical discourse analysis. Journal of Language and Politics 9/1, 1–28.

KhosraviNik, M. (2014). Immigration discourses and critical discourse analysis: dynamics of world events and immigration representations in the British Press. In: C. Hart and P. Cap (eds). Contemporary Critical Discourse Studies. London and New York: Bloomsbury, 501-519.


99

Krzyżanowski, M. and R. Wodak. (2009). The politics of exclusion: debating migration in Austria. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.

Krzyżanowski, M. (2010). The Discursive Construction of European Identities: A multilevel approach to discourse and identity in the transforming European Union. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.

Martínez Lirola, M. (2013). Immigrants going back home: an analysis of the discursive representation of the return plan for immigrants in three Spanish newspapers. In: M. Martínez Lirola (ed.). Discourses of immigration in times of economic crisis: A critical perspective, Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars, 1–27.

Locher, M. A. (2010). Introduction: politeness and impoliteness in computer-mediated communication. Journal of Politeness Research 6/1, 1–5.

McCarthy, M. (1993). Spoken discourse markers in written texts. In: J.M. Sinclair, M. Hoey and G. Fox (eds). Techniques of Description: Spoken and written discourse. A festschrift for Malcolm Coulthard. London: Routledge, 170-182.

Nishimura, Y. (2008). Japanese BBS websites as online communities: impoliteness perspectives. Language@Internet 5/3. Retrieved from: http://www.languageatinternet.org/articles/ 2008/1520 (Accessed October 25, 2016)

Norrick, N. R. and A. Spitz. (2008). Humor as a resource for mitigating conflict in interaction. Journal of Pragmatics 40, 1661-1689.

Olszewski, E. (ed.). (2011). Polacy w Norwegii (1940-2010). Toruń: Marszałek. Pawlak, M. (2012). Transformation and reproduction of national identity among Polish

immigrants in Norway. Poznań: unpublished PhD diss. Raymond, G. G. and T. Modood. (eds.). (2007). The Construction of Minority Identities in France

and Britain. Basingstoke: Palgrave. Reisigl, M. and R. Wodak. (2001). Discourse and Discrimination: Rhetorics of racism

and antisemitism, London: Routledge. Richardson, J. E. and M. Colombo. (2014). Race and immigration in far- and extreme-right

European political leaflets. In: C. Hart and P. Cap (eds). Contemporary Critical Discourse Studies, London: Bloomsbury, 521-543.

Terkourafi, M. (2008). Toward a unified theory of politeness, impoliteness, and rudeness. In: D. Bousfield and M. Locher (eds). Impoliteness in language. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 45-74.

Upadhyay, S. R. (2010). Identity and impoliteness in computer-mediated reader responses. Journal of Politeness Research Language, Behaviour, Culture 6/1, 105-127.

Van Dijk, T. A. (1984). Prejudice in discourse. An analysis of ethnic prejudice in cognition and conversation. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Van Dijk, T. A. (1987). Communicating racism: ethnic prejudice in thought and talk. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Van Dijk, T. A. (1991). Racism and the Press, London: Routledge. Van Dijk, T. A. (2015). Racism in the press. In: N. Bonvillain (ed.). Handbook of linguistic

anthropology, London: Routledge, 384-392. Van Leeuwen, T. and R. Wodak. (1996). Legitimizing immigration control: a discourse-historical

analysis, Discourse Studies 10/1, 83-118. Watts, R. J. (1989). Relevance and relational work: linguistic politeness as politic behavior,

Multilingua, 8/2-3, 131-166. Wodak, R. (1996). Disorders of discourse. London: Addison Wesley.


100

Yates, S. J. (1996). Oral and written linguistic aspects of computer conferencing: a corpus-based study. In: S.C. Herring (ed.). Computer-mediated communication: linguistic, social and cross-cultural perspectives, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 29-46.

Žižek, S. (1997). The plague of fantasies. London: Verso.

Internet sites:

http://oslo.msz.gov.pl/resource/0c005e6b-1a8e-4184-a454-deabde543fad:JCR http://forum-norwegia.pl http://wyborcza.pl/1,76842,14331715,Upominasz_sie_o_swoje_prawa__zostajesz_zwolniony__.ht

ml http://www.dagbladet.no/2015/06/08/nyheter/innenriks/skatt/arbeidsliv/39522323/ http://mojanorwegia.pl http://www.garstecki.no/news-i-media/. http://wiadomosci.wp.pl/kat,1356,title,Polacy-w-Norwegii-druga-kategoria-obywateli-Wraca-sprawa-

Polaka-skazanego-za-pozar-w-Drammen,wid,17289727,wiadomosc.html?ticaid=116bcb http://www.mojanorwegia.pl/czytelnia/kim-sa-polonorki-8976.html

identity, impoliteness and integration in online

Documents